BigBallinStalin wrote:Still not seeing the requested sources. It's okay, JB. You've tried your best, so it's time to revise your paradigm.
You still need a source other than a wiki sentence without a citation. You wouldn't make conclusions without verification, would you? Even if you were correct, that doesn't rule out all investors (because it's not just Turkey involved---remember that bit about parts being within the "FSA"?)
Assuming investors can't make forecasts or receive any information about the future (in)stability of their investments, then you might be right. But... you're not because:
n late 2010, his government signed a memorandum of understanding with Iraq for the construction of two oil and one gas pipeline to carry gas and oil from Iraq’s Akkas and Kirkuk fields, respectively, to the Syrian port of Banias on the Mediterranean Sea. In July 2011 Iranian officials announced a $10 billion gas pipeline deal between Syria, Iraq and Iran that would transport gas from Iran’s South Pars gas field, the world’s biggest, through Iraq to Syria. Also planned was an extension of the AGP from Aleppo, in Syria, to the southern Turkish city of Kilis that could later link to the proposed Nabucco pipeline linking Turkey to Europe, if that pipeline ever materializes.
See how it says, "late 2010"? You see that?
lrn2read, instead of chanting, "da da dummmm." Refusing to think doesn't help anyone, JB--assuming you're actually interested in helping others.
lololololol But where is your source? Your whole story comes from a conspiracy website. You can see that my source was actually... you...
BigBallinStalin wrote:However this contract was annulled at the beginning of 2009 and it was re-tendered.
Did you see this quotation in the post that you were responding to? You posted this and I plucked it out, and responded to it. But this would mean that the construction contract was cancelled by Turkey... this is awesome. I get attacked by you for quoting you because you don't have sources.
You know, I put you on foe because I don't like the way you talk about holocaust victims, and so I wouldn't have to see your bullsh*t anymore. But for whatever reason you keep trying to f*ck with me. So I talk down on you, make you look stupid, make it impossible for you to let it alone.... but if you'd just f*ck off I wouldn't f*ck with you either. And seriously, you have a long history of messing with my posts only to be made to look stupid, then you disappear till next time. If you can learn to stop calling everything Ad Hominum why can't you learn to just disappear forever, this time?
Anyway; Now with your new post It says that a pipeline was planned, it does not say when it was planned for. You very kindly underlined it for me, but you don't have dates for the project? It could have been planned for 1979 for all I know. And since you're the one crying "CONSPIRACY!" the burden of evidence is on you. Do you have some reputed source that says Syria was building a pipeline to Turkey in 2011? Anyway, the protests did not even start till 2011, so your timeline is still impossible. I've found nothing on the entire internet, save for these links to conspiracy websites, that says anything about a pipeline being cancelled because of uprisings in Syria. On the contrary, it seems that Iraq had more to do with the decision to cancel the connection than Syria did.
So if you want to invent a conspiracy, Turkey is the one that Europe should be bombing, not Syria, because Turkey canceled the project. But why would they bomb Turkey if they're still getting their gas? And why would they bomb Syria for gas when they're still getting their gas?
Click image to enlarge.
This pipeline, that you also mentioned, is actually being built, and it does everything that the Syrian connection would do, just without Syria. Iraqi and Qatari sections are even being discussed. Now I guess that your new conspiracy is that Russia is going to bomb the Turkey to keep it's gas monopoly over Europe?
I already listed my sources, but since it's been demonstrated that you can't read beyond your short-sighted worldview, there's no point in addressing you seriously, JB. When I reconsider, 'World'view is too generous. "JBview" is more accurate.
@ Sax:
US special forces have been and still are (2 weeks ago, confirmed) in Jordan, so it's not strictly off-limits as your post declares.
It seems that some have even entered Syria already, so technically the US is (or rather, has been) at war with Syria.
>>>>If one really wishes to help the Syrians, then they should invite a family to their home. If the USG prevents that, then the hindrance to one's moral means becomes obvious (immigration policy issue). This is one path of non-intervention; moral goals can be attained through peaceful means and through the market system. Imagine if Syria was deprived of 80% of its population which moved elsewhere. You'd mostly be left with militants and government fighting over a land whose most important resource was allowed to escape (thanks to more open borders). If you diminish the profit/benefits of war, then you can expect higher marginal costs of war, thus a lower demand for war (i.e. conflict resolution)--e.g. what's the point of fighting over a land whose tax-base has left?<<<<<<
well then will main reason of attack on Syria "protection of civilians<< will be off, because,like you pointed out, only will left government and rebels forces.
No fly zones..another joke,, we know this from libya, when they start bombard tanks, armory vehicle, goverment buildings, and all other who can not fly.
U.S. General Staff Leaking Details of Ship Movements to Deep-Six Washington Warmongering
Great news! The people who will actually have to fight and die for Obama's War Against Syria (not Chickenhawks like Juan_Bottom who will be sipping hot cocoa, wrapped in the American flag while watching the bombs blow peoples heads of on TV as he cheers loudly) are working behind-the-scenes to make sure the aggression is as ineffective as possible ...
... a number of leaks [on ship movements] have been decidedly unauthorized -- and, according to Obama administration sources, likely emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council or Obama himself.
"They need to shut the f--k up," said a former administration official. "It's embarrassing. Who ever heard this much talk before an attack? It's bizarre."
Far more damaging have been a series of disclosures that more subtlely undermine Obama's claim that the Syria action will be quick and clean, punitive and tailored. Earlier this week the New York Times reported on doubts that the main weapon likely employed against Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Tomahawk cruise missile, would have a meaningful impact on the regime's chemical weapons facilities which are widely scattered and likely to be well hidden.
cue Juan_Bottom: "I'VE NEVER HEARD OF POLITICO - IT MUST BE A SITE STAGING A CONSPIRACY AGAINST OBAMA AND MCCAIN IN TANDEM WITH THE ILLUMINATI AND LEGO."
Last edited by saxitoxin on Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
BigBallinStalin wrote:I already listed my sources, but since it's been demonstrated that you can't read beyond your short-sighted worldview, there's no point in addressing you seriously, JB. When I reconsider, 'World'view is too generous. "JBview" is more accurate.
Great response. I quote you and your source, but apparently I need better sources than your sources. I wasn't asking you for sources; I was mocking you for your hypocrisy. I won't accept your conspiracy views, so therefore I am too shortsighted to see "the truth?" You conspiracy nutters... you're all the same. You all think that you're enlightened and that everyone else is a sheep. Your sources don't match your story? Just blame Juan for that. That short-sighted sheep.
saxitoxin wrote: You made a major, embarrassing misstep by exposing your lack of informational and intellectual pedigree and - instead of slinking off - decided to double-down ... by screaming ZeroHedge (a major markets analysis website) is part of a conspiracy out to get you from "anonymous people" - affirming this view by quoting a Wikipedia off-shoot written by anonymous people and continuing with your previous conspiracy rant that all media reports are part of a conspiracy by corporations like Goldman Sachs ... whom you don't like because of its involvement in the 2009 flash trading scandal (which Zero Hedge broke).
ZH has been feted by Matt Taibbi and lauded as the "new face of journalism" by the Columbia Journalism Review (Have you heard of Matt Taibbi or CJR? I'm assuming 'no'?) It's recently been quoted as an expert source the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, the Financial Post, Der Spiegel, the Seattle Times, Politico, etc.
None of those websites lists the conspiracy nutter blog ZEROHEDGE as a major markets analysis website, and nobody has listed it as an expert source. They pretty much just say, "I read this here" which is all the more credit that any normal website would receive. When I google "best market analysis websites" or anything near that, ZEROHEDGE isn't even in the top 100. ZEROHEDGE is most known for the Goldman Sachs bust I guess, but there are more articles linking it to economic doomsday predictions than anything else. Nobody is calling ZEROHEDGE a credible source, except Alex Jones; it's an anonymous market analysis blog run by someone who thinks that there is a global cabal by bankers and the president to run the world. Using an Anonymous poster means that there can be relevant and important truths shared on the website, but it also means that only an idiot would trust everything that they read there. The story that you're trusting has been proven false, and the important journalist tied to it said that she "only helped write it." She wasn't involved in research or fact-checking or anything. The ZEROHEDGE story that you all are ranting about is a proven forgery. Proven. That alone should embarrass you and make you back off from defending the website, but ohhh no... you're gonna dig in your heels and defend Alex Jones' source. You're just an anti-American conspiracy nut.
And this person running the sight is embroiled in their own conspiracy charge of accepting payments to make derogatory claims about rival banking institutions and painting it as real news. http://gross-law.com/Noble_v_Dalrymple_Complaint.pdf
B.Defendants And Their Co-Conspirators Launch A Coordinated Attack On The Company’s Reputation Through The Release And Calculated Spreading Of False And Defamatory Information Concerning The Company
1.Defendants And Co-Conspirators Feeds False And Defamatory Information To Forbes Preparing The Ground For Release Of Report And Arranging With Blogger For His Immediate Publication Of Report After Its Release
2.Forbes Blog 1/5/11 Entry Was False And Defamatory In Multitude Of Ways C.Defendants And Their Co-Conspirators Effect A Coordinated Release Of The False And Defamatory Dalrymple GFC Report
As it happens, the founder is a 30-year-old Bulgarian immigrant banned from working in the brokerage business for insider trading. A former hedge-fund analyst, he’s also a zealous believer in a sweeping conspiracy that casts the alumni of Goldman Sachs as a powerful cabal at the helm of U.S. policy, with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve colluding to preserve the status quo. His antidote? A purifying market crash that leads to the elimination of the big banks altogether and the reinstatement of genuine free-market capitalism.
Juan_Bottom wrote:ZEROHEDGE [rest of angry rant snipped]
Juan - it looks like you're the exception to the rule when Matt Taibbi wrote ...
I know at most commercial news organizations reporters are told that the public has no appetite for complex issues, and that material has to be dumbed down for presentation to the public. Zero Hedge went 10,000% in the opposite direction and became a huge hit. Readers, it turns out, are a lot smarter than we give them credit for.
IRAQ VET CONGRESSWOMAN - "WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFO TO ATTACK"
The former Chair of the Democratic National Convention, congresswoman from Hawai'i, member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, first Hindu elected to the Congress, and Iraq War Veteran (she volunteered to go [ahem] - her unit wasn't tasked for a full deployment), Rep. Tulsi Gabbard declares ...
“Right now, we do not have enough facts about all facets of what is occurring on the ground, the factions involved in this civil war, and what the unintended consequences would be for U.S. military involvement," Gabbard said in a Thursday evening statement.
Qwert wrote:>>>>If one really wishes to help the Syrians, then they should invite a family to their home. If the USG prevents that, then the hindrance to one's moral means becomes obvious (immigration policy issue). This is one path of non-intervention; moral goals can be attained through peaceful means and through the market system. Imagine if Syria was deprived of 80% of its population which moved elsewhere. You'd mostly be left with militants and government fighting over a land whose most important resource was allowed to escape (thanks to more open borders). If you diminish the profit/benefits of war, then you can expect higher marginal costs of war, thus a lower demand for war (i.e. conflict resolution)--e.g. what's the point of fighting over a land whose tax-base has left?<<<<<<
well then will main reason of attack on Syria "protection of civilians<< will be off, because,like you pointed out, only will left government and rebels forces.
No fly zones..another joke,, we know this from libya, when they start bombard tanks, armory vehicle, goverment buildings, and all other who can not fly.
America welcomed Iraqis before and after the invasion in the 90s, and Operation Iraqi Liberation. Any country that we've invaded, from Korea to Afghanistan, we've allowed their civilians to relocate here. Maybe not in huge numbers, but we do open our borders. After Desert Storm there was a community of about 40 Iraqis who were resettled about an hour from me by the US Department of State. They were all given jobs at a cheese factory. Over the Mississippi river in Iowa, there is a huge population of Ethnic Bosnians too. Almost all of the Iraqis living in my community moved back home, but the Bosnians all have US citizenship. You've got too separate the policies of our different presidents from each other. Clinton was not the same president as Bush II, and Obama is his own president too.
Right now, we do not have enough facts about all facets of what is occurring on the ground, the factions involved in this civil war, and what the unintended consequences would be for U.S. military involvement, Gabbard said in a Thursday evening statement.
“Congressional debate and approval must occur before any U.S. military action is taken,” she said, “and through this process we need to have a clear-eyed view of our objectives and what the outcomes would be, understanding the impacts in Syria, and those that extend far beyond Syria."
This isn't a pushback, Obama asked Congress to debate this and decide weather or not to give their approval. After almost 3 years of fighting, it's ludicrous to say that we don't know what is occurring on the ground or who the factions are. The only thing the BBC or NPR hasn't already told us is what will happen in the future. We know exactly what is going on currently. Anyone with a camera can walk into the Syrian refugee camp in Turkey and smuggle themselves across the border.
Right now, we do not have enough facts about all facets of what is occurring on the ground, the factions involved in this civil war, and what the unintended consequences would be for U.S. military involvement, Gabbard said in a Thursday evening statement.
“Congressional debate and approval must occur before any U.S. military action is taken,” she said, “and through this process we need to have a clear-eyed view of our objectives and what the outcomes would be, understanding the impacts in Syria, and those that extend far beyond Syria."
This isn't a pushback, Obama asked Congress to debate this and decide weather or not to give their approval.
Nice try but Congresswoman Gabbard's statement is from August 29. Barack McCain unexpectedly spun his U-Turn on congressional approval on August 31, a capitulation even his close staff didn't know was planned.
Juan_Bottom wrote:it's ludicrous to say that we don't know what is occurring on the ground or who the factions are
I'm sorry you think Meritorious Service Medal honoree Tulsi Gabbard is a ludicrous liar and anti-American. Have you enlisted yet?
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism
All political parties in Germany: "We Will Never Join America's War against Syria"
In yesterday's Chancellor debate - facing growing protests by the peace movement, and in a sudden backtrack of her previous position - Chancellor Angela Merkel capitulated and agreed to mirror socialist challenger Peer Steinbrueck's position that Germany should have nothing to do with America's War against Syria.
Ms. Merkel stated more clearly than she had before that Germany would play no part in any military response to the apparent chemical weapons assault outside Damascus, and she stressed that Germany would always need some kind of international mandate before taking military action.
saxitoxin wrote:I'm sorry you think Meritorious Service Medal honoree Tulsi Gabbard is a ludicrous liar and anti-American. Have you enlisted yet?
I didn't say that. She's probably just misinformed. List of military awards John McCain has earned - Silver Star Legion of Merit Distinguished Flying Cross Bronze Star Purple Heart
I don't think that you're in a position to use a persons military record as evidence that they are genuine and honest. Not after all the sh*t talking you've done about John McCain. Now, I'm not claiming the converse, I'm just saying that you don't have the right.
The Us is going to attack Syria, eventually. It won't matter if Congress refuses to give permission or not, the administration will still attack and still claim it's for "humanitarian" reasons. Even though all the moral justification comes crashing down when you consider BBS' excellent points. People will be killed in the strikes and afterward the civil war will continue where more people will be killed.
But if we want to truly understand why the US is taking this line, and understand why it is that she has no other real choice (there are other choices, but those will not be options for what's really at stake here, the reader should understand by the end of this post**).
We have to look at the US dollar. The US dollar is the reserve currency of the world. I'll get into that in just a moment, but first a short history.
Before 1971 the US dollar was pegged to gold. That is the dollar could be redeemed for gold. That's what gave it it's value. A Federal Reserve Note (FRN)=gold. Gold=FRN. Any country in the world could purchase US paper and at any time redeem that paper for physical gold. Due to the growing US budget and especially the war in Vietnam, gold was leaving the US like birds flying south for the winter. The US needed money, to fund her social programs, entitlements and beat back communism via the flawed Domino Theory. So it was in 1971 that Nixon famously closed the gold window.
When the gold window close, that marked the very end of a currency system. A new one took it's place, what we are all accustomed to this very day. The dollar became a pure fiat currency and what it was that made the dollar so valuable, so sought after, no longer applied. It couldn't be redeemed for gold from the US treasury. Technically, the US defaulted, but the world turned a blind eye (for reasons which will soon be explained).
So, we have to understand what gives the dollar it's value today even though it's no longer pegged to gold. Only two things give the US dollar value (three, if you count the government's "promise" that the dollar is valuable, but how does the US ensure this promise? That's what the two real things that make the US dollar valuable).
The first thing that makes the US dollar valuable is that the first thing Nixon did after closing the gold window was to make an agreement with OPEC to only accept US dollars as payment for oil. This system is referred to as the "petro-dollar" and because every nation on earth needs energy, every nation on earth has to have US dollars to purchase that oil. For instance- If France wanted to purchase X amount barrels of oil, it first had to acquire US dollars. Then purchase the oil using those US dollars. France couldn't buy the oil with francs, it had to use dollars.
This is the one thing that truly gives the dollar value, what makes people and nations have to get US paper. To get that paper these countries have to give something for it, be it services or products. If one were to look back and find when the very last US trade surplus, that would be way way back in 1975. In 1975 US exports were $12 million more than imports. Since 1975 the US has run trade deficits every month, every year, every decade. Just since 2000 the US has run trade deficits of $6.75 trillion.
But this is to be expected, because the US dollar is the reserve currency. A steady flow of US dollars must leave the US so that other nations can purchase oil. There is (was) no other option, and the trade balances reflect this fact. It would be this way with any world reserve currency. If Canada had the reserve currency, the same thing would happen to her. This trade imbalance to any nation that holds the reserve currency status is called the "Triffin dilemma" and we can see the effects in reality and this is due because the US is the reserve currency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma But this gives the dollar value.
The second thing that gives the US dollar it's value, which is about as important as the first thing, is the US military.
part of the deal with OPEC at the time was that if they agreed to accept only US dollars for oil then the US would guarantee security for the OPEC nations. BBS asked a question earlier-
BigBallinStalin wrote: RE: Saudi Arabia and their funding terrorist groups,
I've never understood why the US doesn't take a stronger stance against that.
Now he knows why. Saudi Arabia is absolutely critical in maintaining the reserve status of the US dollar. They can do pretty much anything they want and we'll always back them. The US military, in all her glorious might, is the hammer that will strike anyone and anything that threatens this status.
These two things are the only reason the US dollar is so valuable across the world. When people understand this, then we can see what the US foreign policy really is, some are confused as to why the US is willing to attack Syrian over mass killing but ignore the genocide in other places. This absolute need to maintain the reserve status has a few perks.
The first perk is that the US can print a lot more dollars and not suffer the same consequences of any other nation that attempts to do the same. Zimbabwe comes to mind as an example. If any other nation in the world attempted to print like the US does, or to run up as much debt as the US does, the consequences would be catastrophic.
The US can get away with this because all those inflationary pressures are spread across the entire world instead of spread just across a single nation. It doesn't matter how much value the US dollar has lost because nations still have to use dollars to purchase oil, they'll just need a lot more of them.
The number one export of the US today is inflation. And this export is doing major damage to lots of other nations. Let us not forget, the "revolution" in Egypt was started not as a desire for democracy as the politicians would like to trick you into thinking. It all started out as food riots because the average Egyptian was forced to spend 50% of their income on just food. The people wanted Mubarak out and get someone who would fix the problem. But it wasn't Mubarak's fault, it's just a consequences of how the US dollar works. The Egyptians learned soon enough when they get Morsi in there and he can't do a damn thing either.
China is getting hammered by inflation of the likes we in the US would never stand for. China is also agitated at how we keep printing, decreasing the value of all that US paper she holds. China, to protect her own interests, had to take steps. But she wasn't the first to take certain steps to get out from under the dollar hegemony.
One of the first was Iraq, a member of OPEC you should keep in mind, was one of the first. Saddam Hussein survived an America invasion and was able to keep power. But then he announced that Iraq would accept the euro as payment for Iraqi oil, which went against the agreement made so long ago with Nixon. That was all she wrote for Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
The next to attempt to circumvent the petrodollar was Libya, who attempted to start a new currency based on gold. Libya is also a member of OPEC and not only did her former tyrant attempt to circumvent the petrodollar for his country, but attempt to get all of Africa to get on board with his new version of the "gold dinar". Gaddafi was quickly dealt with.
Which brings us to Syria. Or rather, Iran. Iran has bucked the petrodollar, out of necessity. Due to the massive injunctions put on Iran, they were having a hard time moving their oil using petrodollars as it is the US who ultimately controls petrodollars. They began selling their oil for not just gold, but even in the local currencies of their customers. Iran joined with China as a member of the Asian Dollar Exclusion Zone. Other members include Russia, India, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Argentina and the membership is increasing.
This is one of the greatest threats to the petrodollar, and the US reserve currency status, so far to date. The US has tried to get Iran in the crosshairs but her attempts thus far have failed. Syria is the back door as she has mutual defense pacts with Iran. Attack Syria and Iran is treaty bound to come to her aid.
Now this is a very dangerous game, but it's the real game that is going on in the world. The players are known and who is on what side. The US needs to protect her reserve status for as long as she can, it's in her interests. Russia and China need to break the petrodollar, it's in their interests.
The days of the petrodollar are numbered, that's absolute fact. Reserve status doesn't last forever-
and the US knows it. Not only is the game to attempt to keep the petrodollar going for as long as possible, but it's also about positioning one's self into being the one who establishes the eventual replacement. China and Russia are likely going for SDR's to replace the dollar, the US is likely going for something they have more control over, so as to maintain her economic hegemony.
And those who don't understand how the dollar works are scratching their heads trying to figure out what the hell is going on.
There is a lot more to discuss on the subject, but that's lengthy, and there are others on these forums who understand even more about this issue that could chime in if they so desired. But Syria isn't about Assad bombing and killing his own people. That's been going on for as long as there have been governments, Kings, tyrants, Presidents and nations. As always, it boils down to- It's all about the money and the power that comes with controlling it.
**As to the other choices, that is not a discussion for this thread, IMO.
>>>Syria is the back door as she has mutual defense pacts with Iran. Attack Syria and Iran is treaty bound to come to her aid.<<<
if i understand correct, if Iran and Syria have mutual defence pact, and US know that(ofcourse) this mean that US intent its to provoke war with Iran? Present situation are Civil War, and Iran dont react, because its internal affair, but if US make aggression on Syria, this its practically Declaration of War and mutual defence pact will be activated, and Iran will be forced to react to defend hes allies. Very cunning plan of US, but its look people dont know about that.
Qwert wrote:>>>Syria is the back door as she has mutual defense pacts with Iran. Attack Syria and Iran is treaty bound to come to her aid.<<<
if i understand correct, if Iran and Syria have mutual defence pact, and US know that(ofcourse) this mean that US intent its to provoke war with Iran? Present situation are Civil War, and Iran dont react, because its internal affair, but if US make aggression on Syria, this its practically Declaration of War and mutual defence pact will be activated, and Iran will be forced to react to defend hes allies. Very cunning plan of US, but its look people dont know about that.
Oh, people know about it, Qwert, just look at the poll for this thread. Just look at American public opinion. Overwhelmingly against any US action in Syria.
Syria is an example of the tried and true method of PROBLEM/REACTION/SOLUTION. Those in power create the problem, stimulate the public outrage into a reaction and channel that outrage into a solution that suits their purposes.
In Syria, the "civil war" was stimulated by US surrogates Saudi Arabia and Qatar who send weapons and armed insurgents into the country which escalates until the US can have the excuse to enter the fighting to achieve their goal of war with Iran and show any other OPEC nations what will happen to them if they attempt to circumvent the petrodollar by joining with Russia and China in their attempts to end the petrodollar.
Syria doesn't have much oil, it's a transportation hub. Iran on the other hand is #3 in in the world with respect to proven oil reserves (and #1 in natgas reserves). They can't be allowed to buck the petrodollar.
The dirty truth is probably that the Syrian people are not embracing the rebels as the west would have everyone believe. If a majority of the Syrian people truly were against Assad, he'd have been long gone. The truth is that the average Syrian citizen is scared to death of what the rebels will bring, at least they know Assad. Under Assad's "dictatorship", people have few political powers, but they have greater social freedoms than places like Saudi Arabia. Christians, Jews, Alawite, Sunni, Shia all live (pre civil war) together in peace under Assad. Under what comes with the rebels, that is what is feared. That the Sunni's will wipe out the rest. These are well founded fears considering what's happened in Egypt and Libya. And it's why such factions are fighting for Assad. It isn't because of any great love for Assad, it for their own self preservation.
But Syria and Iran have to be dealt with carefully, as Russia and China are part of this game of the petrodollar, as the opposing side. Not a damn thing the US can do to either of them because of their challenge to this system, only containment can be used by the US. By punishing any OPEC member that attempts to join with them. And that means any offenders are just a nail and the US military is the hammer.
The US politicians would prefer that the American public was on board and fully supported such endeavors, but if not it doesn't matter. We have yet to learn what the national security issue is that requires the US to strike Syria. That hasn't been explained. The truth is that it is indeed in the US' national security interests to attack Syria, it's just that those reasons can't be explained without people saying "Hold on a minute". Instead of telling the truth, that the US petrodollar must be protected at all costs, the line will instead be WMD's that may one day be used against the US. Or something to that effect, even though Syria has had such weapons for decades and the US didn't give a crap. Just like the US didn't give a crap when Saddam used poison gas to kill Iranians back in the 80's. It wasn't until Iraq tried to throw off the petrodollar that the US finally, amazingly, worried about Iraq WMD's (which were provided to him by the US in the first place).
Now your question should be, "If it is indeed in the US national security interest to protect the petrodollar, why don't they just tell us that and why would people say "Hold on a minute"?
And that would be a very good question. But as BBS pointed out, that's probably an issue for a different thread.
The main point for this thread is that the chemical attacks in Syria and humanitarian reasons for intervention are all bullshit and lies. Because the US can't tell the truth about the real reasons because that would upset the game and bring about a premature ending which would be bad for the US (in the short run in the grand scheme of things, but politicians rarely look at the long term).
Suffice it to say, the psychopaths who are trying to save the petrodollar are willing to gamble the lives and livelihoods of millions of people in the US and around the world. How would you feel upon the realization that you are nothing more than a poker chip to TPTB?
patches70 wrote:The dirty truth is probably that the Syrian people are not embracing the rebels as the west would have everyone believe. If a majority of the Syrian people truly were against Assad, he'd have been long gone. The truth is that the average Syrian citizen is scared to death of what the rebels will bring, at least they know Assad.
Oh yeah it's gonna be WWIII over the value of the US dollar all right.
If any of you bothered to google that you'd find that it's all wrong.
Turkey is the transportation hub for Natural Gas to Europe, not Syria. Iran's Natural Gas will be passing to Europe through the Nabucco pipeline in Turkey, so they don't even need Syria.
A democracy in Syria means we don't know what their people will do.
Before their civil wars both Libya and Egypt dealt with US currency. Syria however, was blacklisted for money laundering and aiding terrorist groups.
Syria's people peacefully protested against Assad for more freedom, and he bombed them. Syria's chief allies of Russia and China are not good guys; they have a long and dismal record on Human Rights.
The US Dollar's status as the world reserve currency is not in jeopardy, it actually strengthen during the great recession. The status is in no way dependent on Oil, as something like 80% of all transactions are done in US Dollars.
Our allies here, like Turkey, France, and England, have been our some of the toughest opposition to the US status as the reserve currency.
Historically, no country has ever had their status as the world reserve currency taken away from them. They always lost it after a long period of decline and/or war.
Under Assad's "dictatorship"
These are what you call suspicious quotes. Why would you defend a dictator who tortures political prisoners, bombs protesters, and skimmed $150Billion dollars from from his own people, most of whom live on less than $100(US) a month? His allies are two of the country's with the worst records on human rights. China is notoriously oppressive and there has been a recent cultural oddity of homo-bashing as a pastime in Russia.
Christians, Jews, Alawite, Sunni, Shia all live (pre civil war) together in peace under Assad. Under what comes with the rebels, that is what is feared. That the Sunni's will wipe out the rest. These are well founded fears considering what's happened in Egypt and Libya.
If they have along history of coexisting in peace, protesting together in peace, and fighting together in peace, then WTF would make me think that one sect wants to kill everyone else? Just because black people in Darfur kill other black people in Darfur with machetes does not mean that I should be afraid of black people in the US. It's racist to say that because Sunni's are involved in atrocities in one place, anyone who is a Sunni is a butcher.
The fact of the matter is that these countrys that you are talking about faced opposition from within. The US didn't start any of these conflicts. The US didn't deal with Gaddafi, his people did. The US didn't deal with Assad, his people did. All the US is doing is bringing the conflict to a speedy close, saving lives, and winning friends that way. We didn't invade Libya, nor did we invade Egypt. We didn't establish new governments for them. So American's actual actions of the past few years is the opposite of what you all seem to think that it is. You're all just anti-American, Pro-Russian, conspiracy nuts.
patches70 wrote:The dirty truth is probably that the Syrian people are not embracing the rebels as the west would have everyone believe. If a majority of the Syrian people truly were against Assad, he'd have been long gone. The truth is that the average Syrian citizen is scared to death of what the rebels will bring, at least they know Assad.
Source?
I know most people wont know what I'm talking about; but this actually sounds like the Tory propaganda from the American Revolutionary War. Only 1 in 20 Americans supported the Revolution. In some places thousands of Americans rushed to swear Oaths of Allegiance to the King. After the war though, Patriotism was exhaustive. Suddenly everyone had been a rebel and a minuteman. Similarly, after the Germans were pushed out of France and Belgium, average citizens were hunting down collaborators as some kind of way to cover up their own embarrassment for not having been a part of the resistance. We've all seen the pics of girls having their heads shaved. True patriots are the rainy day patriots. We remember them because there are so few of them.
patches70 wrote:The dirty truth is probably that the Syrian people are not embracing the rebels as the west would have everyone believe. If a majority of the Syrian people truly were against Assad, he'd have been long gone. The truth is that the average Syrian citizen is scared to death of what the rebels will bring, at least they know Assad.
Source?
Sources? All over the internet. All you have to do is take a moment away from the news that's projecting Assad as a cartoon villain (as saxi aptly puts it) and start looking into who it is that's supporting Assad.
If you think "Oh, it's jut the government and the military that supports Assad" then you haven't bothered to look into it yourself. Assad has supporters in Syria among the people and the main reason is that those supporters prefer Assad's secular governance (which is beyond question, he isn't an Islamist or theocratic ruler at all, he's definitely secular) over that of the Islamic rebel factions who have pretty much over run and eclipsed the FSA.
It's a civil war after all, and if you look at the facts of rebels massacring whole towns because of sectarian reasons, you can see the concerns of those who oppose the rebel factions. There are no good guys vs bad guys in this civil war, there are two sides with their own concerns and reasons for fighting.
In general the people who support Assad are the Alawite's (about 12% of the population), the Christians (about 10% of the population), the Shia (about 8-12% of the population) and the urbanized Sunnis (harder to figure, about 30% of the population I'd guess). Then there are the social sites where actual Syrians post, some pro Assad, some anti Assad.
If all one ever looks at is the anti Assad news and propaganda then it's no wonder one would think everyone in Syria is against Assad, but simple common sense should tell one otherwise. Assad is winning (though "winning" still means massive destruction of the nation, it's hard to "win" in a civil war) and would have long ago crushed the rebel factions if those factions had not been receiving lots of support from foreign powers (Read: US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) and Syria has her own support (Read: Russia, Iran). At least Russia and Iran actually have vested interests in Syria, as they are neighbors. What vested interests does the US have in Syria? You should answer that question, though I've pretty much already answered it for you in the above posts. Our interest in Syria is to protect our currency.
The fact is all this foreign intervention has only thus far amounted to the increased death toll, the greater length of the conflict and an inability for actual reform to have a chance.
It also undisputed fact that Al-Qaeda groups are operating in Syria, aligned with the FSA (who have no choice but to accept such alignment). By the US assisting the rebel cause we are also assisting the very people we say carried out 9/11 attacks. Very strange indeed, since it is federal law that anyone and any organization providing material or aid to Al-Qaeda and those affiliated with Al-Qaeda is a federal offense. Yet here is this administration doing just that.
I can understand from our view on "freedom" how some would not want to be aligned nor support Assad. And that's fine. But I still can't see how anyone can then say "we should support the rebels" when by all accounts they are no angels either. Not only that, but it's hard for us who have limited knowledge except for propaganda to say who should do what or be in charge. The Assad family has been in power in Syria since early 1970, after a period of military coup after coup, to which some stability finally came to the nation after it's independence. Syria has had a rocky history, and their ill advised war against Israel certainly didn't help.
Which is why IMO it's best for us to stay out of it. Moralists should consider the points BBS brought up and answer the questions (to themselves) BBS asks.
But it all doesn't matter because the US will strike Assad. Those who are anti Assad and want intervention will get your wish. After which you can ignore the results and pat yourselves on the back for supporting such a noble goal of ousting a tyrant while yet another nation falls to the whims of radical Islam. And that's only if the "limited US strikes" aren't the catalyst of a larger regional conflict that has full scale war between many nations which is a real possibility and risk. Imagine the death toll then!
patches70 wrote:I can understand from our view on "freedom" how some would not want to be aligned nor support Assad. And that's fine. But I still can't see how anyone can then say "we should support the rebels" when by all accounts they are no angels either.
Not only that, but it's hard for us who have limited knowledge except for propaganda to say who should do what or be in charge. The Assad family has been in power in Syria since early 1970, after a period of military coup after coup, to which some stability finally came to the nation after it's independence. Syria has had a rocky history, and their ill advised war against Israel certainly didn't help.
Which is why IMO it's best for us to stay out of it. Moralists should consider the points BBS brought up and answer the questions (to themselves) BBS asks.
The fact that both sides have done bad things does not mean that they are equivalent. It may be true that you have limited knowledge and that therefore you do not know who should do what, but that doesn't mean there are not people out there who have a better handle on the complexities of the situation. If they exist, who are these people? What are they saying about the situation?
Juan_Bottom wrote:Turkey is the transportation hub for Natural Gas to Europe, not Syria. Iran's Natural Gas will be passing to Europe through the Nabucco pipeline in Turkey, so they don't even need Syria.
Jesus, your reading comprehension is bad. Sure, Turkey is a transportation hub for energy to Europe, and where does that energy come from? Russia. Iran. Where is the pipeline that brings the petrodollar energy to Europe? It doesn't exist. It has to pass through Syria.
Without the pipeline through Syria, Europe is hostage to the Russians for any rate hike they want to do at any time for all the oil and natgas imported into Europe.
JB wrote:The US Dollar's status as the world reserve currency is not in jeopardy, it actually strengthen during the great recession. The status is in no way dependent on Oil, as something like 80% of all transactions are done in US Dollars.
And the petrodollar has nothing to do with it, right? JB, you don't understand a thing about currency, do you?
JB wrote:Historically, no country has ever had their status as the world reserve currency taken away from them. They always lost it after a long period of decline and/or war.
Hey! You might just have a point there! After all, the US has been in a period of constant war for how long? Let's start another! And what was it you said just a there on this very post?
JB wrote:The US Dollar's status as the world reserve currency is not in jeopardy,
JB, if you think the US dollar would still be as sought after if it weren't for the petrodollar, then I know you just don't know what you are talking about. See?
JB wrote:The status is in no way dependent on Oil, as something like 80% of all transactions are done in US Dollars.
And do you know why something like 80% of all transactions are done in US dollars? Because nations need to acquire US dollars to purchase oil from OPEC, something any oil importing country has to do.
How do these nations acquire US dollars? Do you think the US just gives those dollars away and say "Here you go, now you can buy some oil". HAHAH. These countries produce goods and services and sell them for US dollars.
There is just no point in trying to talk to you. I give up. This is all for the benefit of people who actually want to understand what is actually going on instead of having to rely on "USA USA! FREEDOM!" propaganda and want to know why the US does what she does when it seemingly makes no sense. It does make sense. It all makes sense when we understand that the US has to protect her economic interests, which means protecting the petrodollar.
Just ask yourself, what makes the US dollar valuable now that it can't be redeemed for gold from the US treasury (as in pre 1971). Answer that JB. Why is the US dollar valuable? Those who understand where the value of currency comes from understands exactly why it's the petrodollar that makes the dollar valuable. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it not true.
If we don't need the petrodollar, JB, then you should be the first in line to stand up and say that any nation in the world should be able to purchase oil from OPEC using whatever currency that OPEC members wish to accept. True economic freedom. But what would happen to the value of the dollar in that scenario? You would quickly see all those transactions done in dollars, done using other currencies and there would be no reason at all for any nation to have to acquire reserves of US paper. Do you even understand what that would do to the US?
Metsfanmax wrote: The fact that both sides have done bad things does not mean that they are equivalent. It may be true that you have limited knowledge and that therefore you do not know who should do what, but that doesn't mean there are not people out there who have a better handle on the complexities of the situation. If they exist, who are these people? What are they saying about the situation?
This guy has a better handle on the situation, right-
Well, he says one thing.
But this guy has a better handle on the situation as well-
And each one says something completely different on what should be done, right? But each of these guys has vastly greater knowledge on what is going on than any of us. So which should be believed?
Obama is a liar. Putin is certainly a liar. They are both liars. Who to trust?
Politicians? They are liars. Assad? He's a liar. The Rebels? They are liars.
It all depends on who you ask. Some will say intervene and have valid reasons. Some will say stay out of it, and have valid reasons. Some support Assad, for valid reasons. Some oppose Assad, for valid reasons.
You are just the right age, Mets. Why don't you join up and go bringing democracy to the world? If it's important enough for you to say "Send my neighbors Son/Father/Daughter to risk their lives and stop Assad" then it's important enough for you to risk your own life.
There are people who are risking their lives fighting on both sides of the conflict for many varied reasons. But I'm glad to see you have the moral omnipotence to determine who is right and who is wrong, who lives and who dies.
There are people who are risking their lives fighting on both sides of the conflict for many varied reasons. But I'm glad to see you have the moral omnipotence to determine who is right and who is wrong, who lives and who dies.
If I knew who was right and who was wrong, I would not be asking for help in determining that.
patches70 wrote:It all depends on who you ask. Some will say intervene and have valid reasons. Some will say stay out of it, and have valid reasons. Some support Assad, for valid reasons. Some oppose Assad, for valid reasons.
I do not believe that inaction is a valid choice if there is some action we can take to improve the situation. Saying "we should just stay out of it because it's complicated and we might mess things up" is the easy way out and not necessarily the answer that achieves the best outcome. As a utilitarian, I am interested in what the best outcome is and how the US can help it become achieved. I recognize it's a complex question. I do not think that means we should stop trying to find the answer.
